Truth or Fable? Judge for Yourself.

[name and organization omitted] I thought this worthy of sharing. This is a piece written by an author friend of mine. It is not very comforting but soberly poignant and likely true:

"Today I had the fortuitous experience to have breakfast with a Muslim who was a former antiterrorist soldier from Afghanistan. Can you believe this? I will share with you his comments that I found quite interesting.

He said this operation took years to pull off, the planning, the coordinating, the execution. He would guess that it cost around 200 million. They train a thousand for the top 10 to become their executioners of war. They train on planes they crash. The weapons. The cells. It costs a fortune.

Several countries and untold numbers were involved in order to make this operation as successful as it was. He said four planes got through but do not believe for a moment that only four planes were involved. There were at least 10 more but Bush halted our air force crews [sic]and grounded them instantly. Apparently, we were lucky only 4 got through.

He said Westerners have no idea how Middle Eastern [sic]think. For example, we need evidence and proof before we will do anything. Middle Easterners are the opposite. They will execute the terrorist before he is able to do his dirty work. Think of Israel and how Israel has been so criticized because it executes the PLO and Hamas leaders before they can execute their orders. Targeting Assassination Killings.

According to this Muslim soldier, their aim is to destroy our financial and economic centers. This is their goal. And our military of course. But first the financial nerves of our country. Our enemies despise us to a depth that is hard for us to imagine. One of the most poignant frames I saw on television last night was seeing tiny little Statue of Liberty facing New York in a pile of smoking opaque debris. Freedom faces Tyranny, I thought to myself.

The other thing he mentioned is that in the early 80's our Intelligence changed their rules which is that they wanted agents with clean resumes. He said to get into the head of a terrorist, to gain their confidence to get into their cells, you have to hire agents that do not have clean resume's but have resumes like the terrorists. He is right.

They chose airplanes that were in the terminals over night. Otherwise, they would have to take chances with planes that are delayed, like what happened recently with me trying to get to [destination deleted] Chicago from New York and with [name of author's wife delelted] trying to return home. The other thing he said was that everyone is worried about the security getting onto the plane. This is the not the roblem. It is about the night shifts, the 12-7 midnight's crews, where apparently "security" is so lax that you and I could go on and off the planes with no effort or challenge. This is how they were able to get their plasticized weapons on board. Also Security cannot detect weapons sealed in special plastic.

This is what I think. The 20th Century was the century of the airplane war. In time, we will look at WW2 romantically with a beginning, a middle and end. The 21st Century will be a war of ongoing terrorism without beginnings, middles or ends. It will be a century of Missiles which have become so sophisticated and advanced that it is hard for us to omprehend.

Just recently, Israel, using a pinpointed missile, killed a high PLO official who was the mastermind behind many of the suicide bombers in Israel. They killed just him. The other people in the room remained alive, the building and structure remained standing. Unbelievable. Terrorism will continue to come from the air.

The fundamentalist Muslims are squarely to be blamed for this. No doubt in my mind. They also had the support from several countries which gave them money and refuge. Iran. Iraq. Afghanistan. These fundamentalists, as seen in villages across Israel,were euphoric in celebration.

And they will try it again. And again. Once a plan is as successful as this one was, it is almost impossible not to want to duplicate it on an even grander, steady scale. War will now be defined not as something to be won like WW2 but rather as something to combat, as seen by continuous acts of Terrorism that will become a mainstay of our lives and have permanently shaken us to our core.

I fear most immediately for our commercial aircraft. It will take at least a year to make our planes secure with clearances of passenger lists, undetected security marshals on planes, locked cockpits, trained security personnel, etc.

If you think about it, it is evil genius, to combine our planes loaded with maximum fuel with their suicide bombers, and then use this lethal bomb of destruction against us!

What ever happens to the world, happens first in Israel. This is only one reason, I pay such close attention to the events in Israel. The way of life that Israel has had to endure this past year is what we as Americans will have to endure in the future. Make no bones about it. Ongoing Terrorism is the new warfare of the 21st Century.

We have fundamentalism Muslim hood [sic], which despise our democratic principles and values, to thank for this.

I only pray and hope that we as a nation has the resolve and endurance to face what will lie ahead of us in the many years to come."

"What's special about it? Crowding? Why does it require different training to handle a firearm on an aircraft than it does on a bus, or in a shopping mall, or on a street?"

Crowding is only one aspect of it. There's just a whole lot more that can go wrong when you start shooting on a plane than there is when you shoot on a bus, in a shopping mall, or on a street.

"Why is that? Perhaps because alcohol is served on airline flights? That's pretty easy to fix, and cheaper than sky marshals..."

No; I'm talking about the very nature of air flight. Many people are likely to perceive a threat on an airliner because they tend to perceive air travel as risky (yes, these are some of the same people who play the lottery daily as an investment strategy). Once they perceive a threat, the sympathetic arousal associated with that threat is likely to promote risky actions in untrained individuals (research shows us that with training, performance can actually be enhanced with sympathetic arousal, but without training, it is almost always impaired in complex situations).

"I probably carry my weapon much more often than you do--but I've spent a fair amount of money on training and a fair amount of time on practice."

Barak, you must know that you are NOT representative of most gun owners. You are not even representative of gun owners on FR. Matter of fact, I would daresay that you are easily in the top 2% of gun owners in knowledge, dedication, investment, and practice. You identify as a gun enthusiast and hang out with other gun enthusiasts, so it doesn't surprise me that you know a lot of well-trained and responsible gun owners. However, there are an AWFUL lot of those bozos (and bozas) to whom you refer out there, and natural selection is not taking care of them fast enough.

"You're looking for someone who is very intelligent, very good at his job, and very bored most of the time. Such people are ripe for bribery."

It does not seem that being intelligent and good at one's job make one ripe for bribery -- I would suggest the opposite. As for being bored most of the time, this is a possibility. However, I think that bribery would be tough enough that most folks would refrain from trying for fear of getting busted and wrecking their plans altogether.

"Most ordinary citizens...obtain and carry weapons because they are focused solely on protecting their own lives."

Again, I would disagree. I certainly didn't. I don't know many gun owners who did.

"First of all, don't assume that an ordinary citizen with a gun is less well-trained than a law-enforcement officer with a gun. It is frequently just not so."

There are clearly well-trained and responsible ordinary citizens out there, and there are LEOs who should be out of a job. You draw comparisons between LEO and civilian shooting ranges. However, nearly all LEOs are REQUIRED to train (thus, you've got a representative sample to observe). What percentage of civilian gun owners do you suppose make it to a place like Thunder Ranch? Would you imagine that they are a representative sample? Most ordinary citizens who own guns "suck" pretty bad when it comes to using them.

"As for the danger of misidentifying a target, that's a well-known problem for which there are several standard solutions."

Interesting. How would multiple armed ordinary citizens tell each other from hijackers? I'm not aware of these standard solutions.

"Essentially, I would rather be responsible for my own security than to entrust it to somebody else"

I would agree with you in most cases. However, when it comes to air travel, apparently we disagree.

"What sort of training do you foresee that would make such persuasion ineffective? I can't think of any."

I'm simply suggesting that someone who's been well trained to anticipate the outcomes of specific actions in hijacking situations is likely to be able to make much better decisions under such stress. Obviously, the people on the first three flights involved in this event did not anticipate what happened in the end.

"people around the target will be crossed by one or at most two."

I'm sorry to have been unclear. Those people may not have more than one or two gunshot wounds. However, if you and your fellow ordinary citizens are using Speer Gold Dots in 9x19mm 124gr +P, I'd just as soon avoid even one gunshot wound.

"Sometimes there isn't any clean way out."

This appears to be a point of agreement between us.

"Really, you ought to look at a few of the issues surrounding concealed carry before you write too much on the subject."

I actually have read a bit on the subject. Matter of fact, some of it's been written by you. However, I'm not sure I follow the specifics you're referring to here. Are you suggesting all of those FReepers who are hopping for Arab blood right now are just full of hot air? Liability issues may hold some of them back, but judging from what they're writing on those threads, there are some who are going to be causing some trouble out there. I'd just as soon they not do it on a loaded plane that's got me on it.

"An armed society is a polite society."

I have no respect for politeness that is coerced (though I have no general objections to an armed society).

"This is a better idea--a stun gun on every flight attendant--but there are still problems."

That is why I agree that there isn't any clean way out.

Security measures are run by people, mostly people who aren't going to be on the plane being secured, and people are vulnerable to bribery.

There are ways to choose people who are less susceptible to bribery, to make people less susceptible to bribery, and to implement security procedures to lessen the impact of bribed individuals. You even came up with one, yourself...

"you'll not often meet a gun enthusiast without at least a healthy dose of cynicism about the government."

See -- there's a lot on which we agree...

Crowding is only one aspect of it. There's just a whole lot more that can go wrong when you start shooting on a plane than there is when you shoot on a bus, in a shopping mall, or on a street.

Please go on. (Keep in mind, of course, the possible consequences if you don't start shooting...)

You're the guy with the doctorate degree, not me; I'll confine myself to pointing out that people will by and large do what it takes to survive and prosper. If it becomes popular knowledge that people who carry guns onto airliners tend to freak out and subsequently die or go to prison, then people who contemplate carrying guns onto airliners will be motivated to get the training (or whatever) required not to freak out and subsequently die or go to prison.

Thank you for the compliments. I'm not sure they're appropriate, but of course they give me lots of warm fuzzies, so thanks anyway.

We're both arguing anecdotally here, and neither of us is being particularly convincing. You do have a point in that the gun people I know are...well, gun people!...and that violent crimes are almost never committed by gun people--both because they tend to be too disciplined, and because they have too much to lose.

Perhaps a good statistic to examine would be the number of innocent people accidentally killed by ordinary citizens legally carrying concealed weapons. I don't know what that number is, but I do know that it's subsumed in the number of innocent people accidentally killed by any ordinary citizen with a gun, which is around 30 a year in the US.

It does not seem that being intelligent and good at one's job make one ripe for bribery -- I would suggest the opposite.

I agree with you. It's the constant boredom and concomitant feeling of being unappreciated that would conspire to create the resentment and vulnerability to bribery. And showing appreciation is impossible, because these folks have to remain anonymous to as many people as possible. Even ground crew could be bribed for their identities, if they knew them.

However, I think that bribery would be tough enough that most folks would refrain from trying for fear of getting busted and wrecking their plans altogether.

Nevertheless, terrorists aren't "most folks" (that's part of what gives them their success), and bribery is historically the most successful way to get weapons aboard an aircraft.

"Most ordinary citizens...obtain and carry weapons because they are focused solely on protecting their own lives."

Again, I would disagree. I certainly didn't. I don't know many gun owners who did.

You obtained a weapon, but do you carry it? My guess is no, at least not very often. If you did, why would you do so? Protecting your life is the only reason that immediately occurs to me.

I didn't buy the guns that led me to understand I was a gun enthusiast to protect my life either: I bought them because I distrusted Brady II in 1998 and was leery of having to register all my purchases via NICS. Even after I discovered that I loved guns, it was a long time before I even considered actually carrying concealed--as you know, concealed carry is a felony in my state. When I began to consider it, and research the issues involved, and practice the techniques, and prepare for the possible consequences--yes, that was indeed motivated by a desire for self-defense.

So the "obtain" isn't the important verb in the quote above; it's merely a prerequisite to "carry."

Could be, but then most ordinary citizens who own guns don't use them. There are what--80 million gun owners in the US? Only two million of those, or so, use their guns each year to prevent crimes, and the number of crimes committed with guns every year is under 100,000. Assuming conservatively that those are distinct groups, that's just over two and a half percent of gun owners who actually use their guns in a particular year. It would be invalid to assume that that's the top two percent, but it would be equally invalid to assume that they'd be randomly distributed. Gun owners who don't consider self defense generally won't have their guns accessible when they're confronted by criminals.

Interesting. How would multiple armed ordinary citizens tell each other from hijackers? I'm not aware of these standard solutions.

Well, one of the first things you learn when you're examining what it means to carry concealed is that when you see what you think is an incipient crime against somebody else, you don't just draw and start firing. The first thing you do is assume a defensive posture (cover, concealment, etc.), clear your line of fire, and observe. You might just be watching a domestic argument, or an altercation between drunken buddies, or even some kind of play act. There's more, but this will do for the moment.

In a typical hijack situation, the bad guys will be in offensive postures and the good guys will be in defensive postures. True, some look-at-me-I'm-a-hero bozo might yank his gun and start blasting and get taken down by a hail of "friendly" fire, but after news of the incident spreads, repetitions will taper off.

I would agree with you in most cases. However, when it comes to air travel, apparently we disagree.

Apparently so.

I'm simply suggesting that someone who's been well trained to anticipate the outcomes of specific actions in hijacking situations is likely to be able to make much better decisions under such stress.

I understand that, but I'm casting around for a course of action that could be trained into a sky marshal to counter the classic drop-it-or-I-smoke-the-hostage move. Can you think of one?

Hey--pretty cool on the ammo designation.

Apparently I was unclear as well. What I meant to put across was that it might well be that as soon as hijackers appear on your flight, it becomes a foregone conclusion that innocent people are going to be injured or even die. Gunshot wounds to a few bystanders are regrettable, but they beat a pile of executed hostages, a smoking crater full of charred body parts, or a collapsed office building.

I'd take a bullet for that deal.

I actually have read a bit on the subject [of concealed carry]. Matter of fact, some of it's been written by you. However, I'm not sure I follow the specifics you're referring to here. Are you suggesting all of those FReepers who are hopping for Arab blood right now are just full of hot air? Liability issues may hold some of them back, but judging from what they're writing on those threads, there are some who are going to be causing some trouble out there. I'd just as soon they not do it on a loaded plane that's got me on it.

Hot air? Not exactly, but close. If I were sitting on an airliner with a gun in my pocket, and I had pretty much fixed it in my mind that the olive-skinned guy with the scraggly beard and the turban across the aisle two rows up was a bad guy...no matter how angry I was at him, I'd want to make sure there were a number of people who agreed with me before I pulled out a gun on an airplane full of CCWs. Even if I had just posted a bunch of guff to the Free Republic.

"An armed society is a polite society."

I have no respect for politeness that is coerced (though I have no general objections to an armed society).

I'm not particular about the source of politeness; I just appreciate it when it happens.

Sure and you're right. I wrote some software once for an Accounts Payable department. It was interesting to see how the department has traditionally evolved to the point where it requires the collusion of two or more separate employees to embezzle money, and the collusion of at least three to cover it up.

But I wouldn't stake my life on it. Again, I'd much rather be responsible for my own life than trust a stranger with it.

See -- there's a lot on which we agree...

Of course there is--and with good reason.

Hi, Barak. Sorry not to get back to you sooner. I had a very busy weekend...

"Please go on. (Keep in mind, of course, the possible consequences if you don't start shooting...)"

Of course, there are the (debatable) issues surrounding depressurization. It may not just be a small bullet hole in the wall of the plane that we're talking about. It's probably possible to blow out a window or five (I've heard of those windows blowing out for other reasons). However, the main problems I see all center around the much more drastic consequences of knocking out anything that's essential to the operation of the vehicle, whether that be a pilot or a critical system. On a bus, you'd just come to a stop, or perhaps have a highly survivable crash. On a plane, you're in a lot more trouble. With the security measures I've outlined, I believe the negative consequences of not shooting would be extremely unlikely (and there'd still be someone to do the shooting if it were required). I think the actual consequences of having lots of armed bozos (even along with lots of responsible armed gun owners) in the skies would be a lot worse. I guess it is an empirical question...

"If it becomes popular knowledge that people who carry guns onto airliners tend to freak out and subsequently die or go to prison, then people who contemplate carrying guns onto airliners will be motivated to get the training (or whatever) required not to freak out and subsequently die or go to prison."

Rational, sober, and intelligent people will be motivated to get that training. I still think the biggest problem one would face in your scenario would be all the irrational folks who would blow up and have a gun accessible. You wrote that "very few people other than hijackers do it, no matter how drunk, angry, or mentally unstable they are." As I understand it, until Tuesday we hadn't had a hijacking for ten years in this country. However, "air rage" had gotten to be such a problem that it was being described as an "epidemic" by the major airlines. The people involved were almost always drunk, mentally unstable, or otherwise impaired. These are folks for whom the deterrent value of your plan will be greatly diminished.

"Perhaps a good statistic to examine would be the number of innocent people accidentally killed by ordinary citizens legally carrying concealed weapons. I don't know what that number is, but I do know that it's subsumed in the number of innocent people accidentally killed by any ordinary citizen with a gun, which is around 30 a year in the US."

That's an impressive number. However, if you take down the metal detectors, you'll not only be dealing with those who are legally carrying concealed weapons. Moreover, I'd just as soon one or two of those 30 not be on an airplane at the time (see above). There are a lot more than 30 people on your typical commercial airliner, and your yearly total could go up pretty quickly.

"And showing appreciation is impossible, because these folks have to remain anonymous to as many people as possible."

Appreciation can be shown in many ways. Not all of them are public.

"Nevertheless, terrorists aren't "most folks" (that's part of what gives them their success), and bribery is historically the most successful way to get weapons aboard an aircraft."

No, all of them aren't "most folks," but some of them are. Meanwhile, can you identify more than two or three specific instances in which bribery was used to get weapons aboard an aircraft? Even if it's the most successful way, it doesn't mean it's a very successful way.

"So the "obtain" isn't the important verb in the quote above; it's merely a prerequisite to "carry.""

Good point. I missed that.

"In a typical hijack situation, the bad guys will be in offensive postures and the good guys will be in defensive postures. True, some look-at-me-I'm-a-hero bozo might yank his gun and start blasting and get taken down by a hail of "friendly" fire, but after news of the incident spreads, repetitions will taper off."

Interesting. All the more reason to have well-trained people on these flights. However, looking back to your earlier scenario, wouldn't it be possible to put your sorriest excuse for a terrorist out there with a gun in an offensive position, just in time to have your four other terrorists jump into defensive positions while scanning for those good Samaritans out there who are also in defensive positions? Does it ever end? As you noted, there is no perfect system.

"I understand that, but I'm casting around for a course of action that could be trained into a sky marshal to counter the classic drop-it-or-I-smoke-the-hostage move. Can you think of one?"

Shoot the terrorist? That's one that's usually difficult for good Samaritans, but should be pretty easy to train into a sky marshal after the events of the past weekend.

"Gunshot wounds to a few bystanders are regrettable, but they beat a pile of executed hostages, a smoking crater full of charred body parts, or a collapsed office building."

Okay. Append this to my answer directly above.

Hope you had a good weekend...

Hi, Barak. Sorry not to get back to you sooner. I had a very busy weekend...

I'm sorry too: I didn't recognize your second handle, and so I didn't read your post until recently.

Of course, there are the (debatable) issues surrounding depressurization.

According to military tests, even after explosive depressurization at 35,000 feet, the average person still has thirty seconds before his judgment begins to be affected by hypoxia. Explosive decompression, of course, is an extremely unlikely result of a gun battle aboard an aircraft, but it is a worst-case scenario. Thirty seconds is plenty of time to get situated with one of those little drop-down oxygen-mask thingies. That, plus the fact that the captain will obviously be executing an emergency dive to get down to where the air is thicker during the last twenty-five of those thirty seconds, would seem to indicate that death from suffocation is no more of a danger than being hit by a bus at a street corner.

It may not just be a small bullet hole in the wall of the plane that we're talking about. It's probably possible to blow out a window or five (I've heard of those windows blowing out for other reasons).

Aircraft windows aren't constructed from auto safety glass. A bullet hole in a car window can pretty much destroy the structural integrity of the entire sheet of glass, and if there were a 5psi force acting on a five-by-two-foot windshield when its structural integrity was destroyed, obviously the three and a half tons of pressure will probably rip it from its frame. But aircraft windows are generally dual-paned plexiglas or Lexan, which doesn't dissolve into little cubical pieces when hit by a bullet.

However, the main problems I see all center around the much more drastic consequences of knocking out anything that's essential to the operation of the vehicle, whether that be a pilot or a critical system. On a bus, you'd just come to a stop, or perhaps have a highly survivable crash. On a plane, you're in a lot more trouble.

Airliners are designed to have as few critical systems as possible (including the pilot--that's why there's always a first officer). Gunfire is one reason a system may fail, of course, but there are many other more common and less photogenic reasons. Generally when something fails on an airliner, the passengers never even find out.

But even if a single gunshot could--heck, even if it was guaranteed to--bring an airliner crashing down in flames, resulting in the unavoidable deaths of all on board, I would still oppose taking from people the liberty of defending themselves on an airliner. The argument over whether we should take people's rights away from them should not hinge on how safe we think it is to let them keep those rights: it should hinge on whether we have the right to deny them.

With the security measures I've outlined, I believe the negative consequences of not shooting would be extremely unlikely (and there'd still be someone to do the shooting if it were required). I think the actual consequences of having lots of armed bozos (even along with lots of responsible armed gun owners) in the skies would be a lot worse. I guess it is an empirical question...

Okay, let me take another tack.

Would you agree with me that this question is one that should be answered by the free market, rather than by the federal government?

Regardless of what either of us thinks, there may be an airline somewhere that would like to experiment with offering flights without official security. Right now, that's prohibited by the federal government. Do you think that's right? Perhaps you would never choose to ride an airliner where everyone who couldn't raise enough bribe money wasn't deprived of carry-on luggage and cavity-searched before being allowed to board; but does your conscience allow you to force everyone else to be subjected to the same indignities?

Rational, sober, and intelligent people will be motivated to get that training. I still think the biggest problem one would face in your scenario would be all the irrational folks who would blow up and have a gun accessible. You wrote that "very few people other than hijackers do it, no matter how drunk, angry, or mentally unstable they are."As I understand it, until Tuesday we hadn't had a hijacking for ten years in this country. However, "air rage" had gotten to be such a problem that it was being described as an "epidemic" by the major airlines. The people involved were almost always drunk, mentally unstable, or otherwise impaired. These are folks for whom the deterrent value of your plan will be greatly diminished.

Nevertheless, such people seem for the most part to be able to restrain themselves on a crowded street in states where concealed carry is legal and such a display might have serious consequences. It's only in a planeload of government-guaranteed defenseless victims that they feel secure enough to get belligerent.

However, if you take down the metal detectors, you'll not only be dealing with those who are legally carrying concealed weapons.

That's true. You might be dealing with me, for example. I can't legally carry a concealed weapon, even though you yourself opined that I was probably in the top 2% of Freeper gun owners in terms of...well, you can read the list above; it's a little embarrassing. That puts me, by your measure, quite a ways above a number of folks who can carry legally. What's the relevance of "legally?"

Moreover, I'd just as soon one or two of those 30 not be on an airplane at the time (see above). There are a lot more than 30 people on your typical commercial airliner, and your yearly total could go up pretty quickly.

Again true--especially if people are not allowed to defend themselves against deadly attacks.

Actually, instead of continuing in this vein, I'd rather concentrate on the question I asked above, about whether this argument is best settled by federal decree or by the free market.

But you ask a tactical question that I can't avoid:

However, looking back to your earlier scenario, wouldn't it be possible to put your sorriest excuse for a terrorist out there with a gun in an offensive position, just in time to have your four other terrorists jump into defensive positions while scanning for those good Samaritans out there who are also in defensive positions?

It'd be possible, yes, but it'd be a little silly, because defensive postures are designed to work defensively, not offensively. It would be difficult for a terrorist to use a defensive posture to scan for good guys for three reasons: first, they're not designed to allow scanning, because the assumption is that when you assume a defensive posture you have already identified the threat, and further reconnaissance might be deadly. Second, defensive postures are designed to make one as inconspicuous as possible, so that somebody scanning for threats will be unlikely to see you. Third, even if a defensive terrorist does identify a defensive good guy, then what? In order for there to be a decisive victory, one of them will need to take the offensive role.

Offense is, by its nature, much more difficult and dangerous than defense. One demonstration of this can be seen in the fact that guns are successfully used in offensive crimes only thirty-some thousand times a year in this country, while they are successfully used in defense more than two million times a year. Another demonstration can be seen in the incredible amount of heavy armor and armament and training that is required for a SWAT team to safely clear a house. Yet another in the old strategic adage that one should not attempt to occupy an objective unless the attacking force is at least three times as strong as the defending force.

"I understand that, but I'm casting around for a course of action that could be trained into a sky marshal to counter the classic drop-it-or-I-smoke-the-hostage move. Can you think of one?"

Shoot the terrorist? That's one that's usually difficult for good Samaritans, but should be pretty easy to train into a sky marshal after the events of the past weekend.

You mean draw against a drawn gun? That's a no-no. People only do that in the movies. Or perhaps you're imagining two men, both pointing guns--the marshal at the bad guy, and the bad guy at a hostage. That only happens in the movies too. In real life, the bad guy would take cover behind the hostage and shoot the marshal immediately.

Or, judging from context, perhaps you meant "shoot the hostage?" You know, like in the movie Speed? I can pretty much guarantee you that no airline is going to train a sky marshal to do that, or tolerate third-party training that does so. Whether or not it's tactically valid is one question, but whether or not the airline can afford the lawsuits that would spring simply from the discovery that it was part of the training...that's not even a question. An individual might do that on his own, but the only training facilities that are going to train people to shoot hostages are facilities that can't be sued by the hostages' families.

Back when they still had sky marshals in this country, the airlines ended up ordering the marshals to take no action in case of a hijacking, simply because they were afraid of the legal consequences.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.